Judgment :- The petitioners are challenging the order of the first respondent, the Presiding Officer, Chennai in C.P.No.428 of 1990. The learned Presiding Officer has directed the petitioners to pay wages as follows: (i) Mr.Dhiravia Gandhi H.V.D. Rs.1,04,720.00 (ii) Mr.Shanmugam H.V.D. Rs.1,04,720.00 (iii) Mr.Muthu H.V.D. Rs.1,04,720.00 (iv) Mr.Sundaram H.V.D. Rs. 50,430.00 (v) Mr.Periasamy H.V.D. Rs.1,14,615.00 (vi)Mr.Prabakharan H.V.D. Rs. 30,098.00 Total : Rs.5,09,303.00 2. The legality and correctness of the said order is questioned in this writ. 3. Respondents 2 to 7 are the Drivers of the Heavy Vehicles of the Transport Unit of the petitioners and they entered on strike on 20.11.1980. They applied for Medical leave and when they were referred to Medical Board, they did not report duty. They did not produce any fitness certificate given by the Medical Board. Instead of that they filed claim petition C.P.No.253/81 for their wages from 012. 1980 to 312. 1980. The claim petition was allowed by the Labour Court. 4. The writ petition was filed against the order and the High Court was pleased to order for payment of wages. Accordingly, claim memo was filed and it is for the specific period as medical leave. 5. Thereafter, the second respondent tendered his resignation and relieved from duty on 07.07.1981 having accepted his resignation. The fifth respondent retired on attaining the age of superannuating on 30.06.1987. 6. While so, all the six respondents filed claim petition claiming their wages and other attendant benefits from 1981 to 1990 and the Labour Court dismissed the same holding that the issue involved is non-employment and for non-employment, Industrial Dispute alone can be raised and a claim petition under section 33(2) of I.D. Act is not permissible. Then the respondents 2 to 7 preferred a writ in W.P.No.6139 of 1995, High Court remitted the case to the Labour Court and thereafter the Labour Court passed the order impugned. 7. The main contention of the petitioners is among six drivers, the 3rd respondent by name, Shanmugam, the 4th respondent by name Muthu and the 6th respondent by name Periyasamy were provided duties as they reported for duties. Whereas, the 2nd respondent tendered his resignation and got relieved on 07.07.1981 itself and the 5th respondent has retired on 30.06.1987. Whereas the 7th respondent was dismissed from service on grave disciplinary charges and those respondents are not entitled for the reliefs. 8. Whereas, the 2nd respondent tendered his resignation and got relieved on 07.07.1981 itself and the 5th respondent has retired on 30.06.1987. Whereas the 7th respondent was dismissed from service on grave disciplinary charges and those respondents are not entitled for the reliefs. 8. The other contention is that the drivers have filed C.P.No.253 of 1981 and claimed wages for specific period and the same was paid. While so, the present claim petition is again filed for the period from 01.04.1981 to 31.01.1990. and it is nothing but misuse of process of law. 9. It is further stated that the second respondent by name Dhiravia Gandhi has claimed wages from 01.04.1981 to 31.01.1990. Whereas he has resigned and relieved from service on 07.07.1981. Hence he is not entitled for any wages after his resignation. 10. It is also contended that respondents 3, 4 and 6 filed claim petition for wages from 01.04.1981 to 31.01.1990 but they are provided with duties and they reported for duty and they worked during the above period and received their wages. Therefore, they are not entitled to claim any further amount during the period of service. 11. It is also contended that the 5th respondent retired from service with effect from 30.06.1987 and the 7th respondent was dismissed from service on 19.06.1984 and therefore, they are also not entitled for any claim. 12. Hence, it is stated that the Court below without verifying these facts has passed the order impugned. Hence, it is liable to be set aside. 13. Perused the impugned order. 114. The Labour Court has framed three points for determination and the first point is the most important point i.e. whether the petitioners are entitled to get the amount as computed? 115. The admitted fact is that as per the orders of this Court in the writ petition, the six drivers who are not provided with work are paid salaries for the period from 012. 1980 to 312. 1980 and as per driver Mr.Sundaram is concerned, the salary is paid up to 31.03.1981. 116. Further, the labour Court noted in para 11, that the second respondent by name Dhiravia Gandhi submitted his resignation letter and the same is marked as Ex.R.25 but since the second respondent by his letter Ex.R.2 revoked his resignation. therefore, he should be treated as an employee. 117. 116. Further, the labour Court noted in para 11, that the second respondent by name Dhiravia Gandhi submitted his resignation letter and the same is marked as Ex.R.25 but since the second respondent by his letter Ex.R.2 revoked his resignation. therefore, he should be treated as an employee. 117. At this stage, most crucial fact to be noted is Ex.P.25 the resignation of the second respondent is dated 02.01.1982 where as Ex.R2 i.e. the revocation of resignation is dated 11.07.1991 nearly after a year. 118. When the resignation was accepted on 02.01.1982 itself and when the second respondent who has offered himself to be relieved from the post with effect from 07.07.1981 and who had given application to sanction provident fund still the Labour Court came to a conclusion that since he has withdrawn his resignation, he is entitled for claim. It is perverse finding. 19. The impugned order is silent with regard to employment of R2, R3 and R6. The burden lies on the respondents 2 to 7 to prove that the work is not provided to them during the above period as such they are entitled to claim the wages. However, the labour Court has discussed with regard to the claim of 5th and 7th respondents, as one has retired on attaining the age of superannuation and the other is dismissed from the service. 120. The Labour Court came to a specific conclusion in para 12 that the dismissal of the 7th respondent is proper. When a disciplinary action is pending against 7th respondent and he was dismissed from service with effect from 14.06.1984, his claim was accepted till such day without further discussing about the nature of the disciplinary action and how long the disciplinary action is pending and how it has reached the conclusion. 121. In the instant case, only two witnessesare examined on behalf of the respondents and they are 3rd and 4th respondents and there is no evidence to the effect that how all these respondents are entitled to claim the amounts. 20.22. 121. In the instant case, only two witnessesare examined on behalf of the respondents and they are 3rd and 4th respondents and there is no evidence to the effect that how all these respondents are entitled to claim the amounts. 20.22. In the instant case, the findings of the Labour Court is that the second respondent by name Dhiravia Gandhi who has submitted his resignation through Ex.R.23 and R.24 and who has relieved himself from service on 07.07.1981 and whose resignation is accepted under Ex.R.5 is also entitled for the wages up to 31.01.1990 as he has withdrawn his resignation and it is nothing but perverse finding. 223. The observation of the Court below in para 11 is that though the resignation given by the said employee will not have any legal binding, hence he deemed to be in continuous service till he attains to the age of superannuation is totally absurd and there is no findings. Therefore, the order of the Tribunal is liable to be set aside. 224. Whenever, it is shown that the impugned orders suffers from an error apparent on the face of the record, this Court has power to interfere with the finding of fact made in the impugned order is shown to be based on no evidence or finding and it is against the spirit of law or the law of the land. This Court can set aside the impugned order of the labour Court while exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226. 225. Hence, the Court is of the opinion that this is a fit case to set aside the impugned order and the matter is remitted to the Labour Court for fresh adjudication. 226. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and the writ petition is allowed. No costs.